If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The Lads Mags - Part 2
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Last year, I did a thread about the lads mags. Overall, opinion on them was very divided. At the time, a magazine had got into hot water due to a competition called "win a boob job for your girlfriend". Some thought it harmless fun, others thought it degrading to women. Now the lads mags are in the news again, and for a similar reason - because of their content. Sky News informs us;
"Lads' mags are to be put on higher shelves after concerns about their sexual content. The move comes after Home Office officials met newsagents' representatives following complaints from MPs and campaigners. Some 19,000 newsagents will be given new guidelines about placing the magazines about of childrens' sight. But they will NOT be told to place them on the top shelf alongside soft-porn titles. Magazines such as Loaded, Nuts and Zoo are expected to be moved and tabloid newspapers are also being targeted." >> Details >>
Officially, this is because the front covers of the lads mags, and increasingly, the newspapers are becoming more sexually explicit. Perversely however, current rules mean a nipple cannot be displayed on the front page of magazines and newspapers for "decency" reasons. And I don't know what's indecent about nipples. What a strange country we live in.
Anyway, my opinion in thread one was that the lads mags are absolute drivel that consist of lots of pretty pictures of silicone "enhanced" breasts (I like 'em natural myself) and no articles to read. But I don't really think they're so damaging that they have to be shifted to the top shelves. Okay, I wouldn't want them displayed next to The Beano for instance, but equating them with hardcore porn magazines is just barmy.
As for tabloid newspapers... every single day, they have one of two things, or both. (1) A headline with sexual innuendo in it; or (2) Pictures of topless women. An example of (1) is "Chancellor of the Sex-chequer". That was how Thursday morning's The Sun reported on the Budget following the cut in taxes on condoms threaded here THREE weeks ago. As for examples of (2), well, just look at the tabloids yourself. It's the latest picture of Chantelle Houghton /Keeley Hawkes /Jennifer Aniston / whoever tabloid editors are getting wet dreams over. But again, not much of a reason to banish them to the top shelf.
What do you think of this?
Don't remember the original thread? No matter, see it by clicking here.
"Lads' mags are to be put on higher shelves after concerns about their sexual content. The move comes after Home Office officials met newsagents' representatives following complaints from MPs and campaigners. Some 19,000 newsagents will be given new guidelines about placing the magazines about of childrens' sight. But they will NOT be told to place them on the top shelf alongside soft-porn titles. Magazines such as Loaded, Nuts and Zoo are expected to be moved and tabloid newspapers are also being targeted." >> Details >>
Officially, this is because the front covers of the lads mags, and increasingly, the newspapers are becoming more sexually explicit. Perversely however, current rules mean a nipple cannot be displayed on the front page of magazines and newspapers for "decency" reasons. And I don't know what's indecent about nipples. What a strange country we live in.
Anyway, my opinion in thread one was that the lads mags are absolute drivel that consist of lots of pretty pictures of silicone "enhanced" breasts (I like 'em natural myself) and no articles to read. But I don't really think they're so damaging that they have to be shifted to the top shelves. Okay, I wouldn't want them displayed next to The Beano for instance, but equating them with hardcore porn magazines is just barmy.
As for tabloid newspapers... every single day, they have one of two things, or both. (1) A headline with sexual innuendo in it; or (2) Pictures of topless women. An example of (1) is "Chancellor of the Sex-chequer". That was how Thursday morning's The Sun reported on the Budget following the cut in taxes on condoms threaded here THREE weeks ago. As for examples of (2), well, just look at the tabloids yourself. It's the latest picture of Chantelle Houghton /Keeley Hawkes /Jennifer Aniston / whoever tabloid editors are getting wet dreams over. But again, not much of a reason to banish them to the top shelf.
What do you think of this?
Don't remember the original thread? No matter, see it by clicking here.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
*objectification*
*no it isn't*
*yes it is*
*no it isn't*
ad nauseum
That sums it up well. But it is a good question tbh...
I think all toss: The Sun, The Star, (The Mail ;p), Lads Mags, should have a special "toss" section in shops. To keep it seperate from readable literature.
Oh and... Hehe... nipple.
its misleading for you to keep saying that you don't think they should be on the top shelf when its clearly stated that they will NOT be on the top shelf.
I don't think magazines of that ilk actually objectify women anymore than the likes of Cosmo and More magazine objectify men.. albeit in a slightly different way.
diference is, cosmo has genuine sophisticated humour in it, zoo just has humour of the lowest value
Yep, womens managazines do exactly the same thing but theres never a hoohah about that.
I beg to differ; I find my dog's humour more sophisticated.
yes but your a pisshead, you'd find anything funny after a bottle of dog
but no MRG IN COSMO READING SHOCKER i disagree
Aye, though I wouldn't say it was exactly the same, the main difference being that the (perceived) objectification of women in lads mags is mainly visual whereas it's a lot more textual in the "girly" magazines (though you do get the odd "z-list celebrities flash their [male] arses for testicular cancer campaign" which makes me want to upchuck).
can we go back to value ...yes?
Sure.
You paying?
you wouldn't want to eat my liver, its all fatty
Nah, he just read Nuts and his brain dissolved.
I don't see anything wrong with breasts... I think the true objectification of women comes when we're told we must keep our tops on instead of remove them like men are allowed to in hot weather.
Out of proportion comment much? I'd hardly class any of them as hardcore porn.
The lads mags are for those that only think about beer, tits and sport. They have gfood stuff in them occasionally, the odd interesting article and yes lots of attractive women, which I don't mind.
Both mens and owmens mags are wast eof money usually as they are full of adverts and no content.
I woldn't give one or sell on to a kid but they aren't porn either.
They are just magazines and Diane Abbot has always been a liar and hypocrit so why should we care what she thinks?
I suppose you think men wearing shorts during summer is objectification as well? Nothing 'wrong' with bollocks and cocks is there?
You can't 'make' something erotic, it either is or isn't.
umm not to have a go but who are you to say what they were originally for??
I mean yes they are used to fed babies but they can be used to attact the men that help them make the baby you know what I mean?